Unions, imo, are also the market-based solution. Let workers do what they want, and then they can negotiate with the employers (which by the way can also help firms if they go through a tougher period, unions are able to make concessions too).
Additionally, unionization also helps non-union workers. The decline in unionization rate can actually explain a significant chunk of the observed rise in inequality in the US via both the direct effect (fewer union workers) and the indirect effect (the benefits non-union workers get from higher unionization rates) https://www.nominalnews.com/p/unions-strike-action-and-the-economy
It is true and deserves to be repeated that unions are actually very much a free market solution, in that they are just facilitating fair negotiation, rather than a solution along the lines of "hang the bosses from a tree."
Nice sentiment, but as you indicated you know, capitalists simply can't help themselves. In the end, they are ALWAYS driven for more profit soonest, and will sacrifice their employees in a heartbeat to achieve that goal.
If they don't, then once they're gone another capitalist will. That's why I think we should end the employer-employee relationship, just like we did to master-slave and lord-serf. We can do better than this system.
"They are not 'free speech,' in a vacuum. They are all, top to bottom, dishonest arguments in service of maintaining a highly unequal power arrangement that advantages the company and disadvantages the workers and that over time results in workers living worse lives, economically and socially and politically."
No, these are all still "free speech," paradigmatic examples, really. Convincing workers that both they and the owning class share in some universal right is the same as convincing them that they both share some bond called Patriotism. Personally, I think we need to stop concocting these procedural exceptions and recognize "Freedom of Speech" as just another mystification of capitalist domination.
Morality and immorality have no absolute standard. He who acts contrary to his conscience is immoral. He whose morality allows of acts that another's would proscribe nevertheless acts morally. The malaise that afflicts our societies is increasingly the inability to recognise acting contrary to conscience as constituting immorality for oneself and recognising that an act that disfavours another unfairly even has anything to do with morality.
In the matter of negotiation, things are not as clear cut as you suggest. The only negotiated consensus that is fair is one in which the benefits and disadvantages that are negotiated are based on full knowledge of what perfection is constituted by and are exclusive to the parties to the negotiation. Where that breaks down is where one or the other party is left in ignorance as to where perfection lies or where either or both of the parties negotiate on behalf of a party who is not a party to the negotiations. These two conditions are not met in a surprising number of cases, often in the most offhanded of ways, such as, "We know what the market rate is for this work, but WE can't pay that rate." Yet, they still want the work done.
You may laugh while patting yourself on the back but I still can’t discern what your point is. Do you disagree with something Hamilton said here? How so, and why? What exactly are you trying to say here that is relevant to the topic? Try being concise and direct instead of verbose and vague.
Unions, imo, are also the market-based solution. Let workers do what they want, and then they can negotiate with the employers (which by the way can also help firms if they go through a tougher period, unions are able to make concessions too).
Additionally, unionization also helps non-union workers. The decline in unionization rate can actually explain a significant chunk of the observed rise in inequality in the US via both the direct effect (fewer union workers) and the indirect effect (the benefits non-union workers get from higher unionization rates) https://www.nominalnews.com/p/unions-strike-action-and-the-economy
It is true and deserves to be repeated that unions are actually very much a free market solution, in that they are just facilitating fair negotiation, rather than a solution along the lines of "hang the bosses from a tree."
This is an excellent moral argument. Thank you for your work.
Nice sentiment, but as you indicated you know, capitalists simply can't help themselves. In the end, they are ALWAYS driven for more profit soonest, and will sacrifice their employees in a heartbeat to achieve that goal.
If they don't, then once they're gone another capitalist will. That's why I think we should end the employer-employee relationship, just like we did to master-slave and lord-serf. We can do better than this system.
"They are not 'free speech,' in a vacuum. They are all, top to bottom, dishonest arguments in service of maintaining a highly unequal power arrangement that advantages the company and disadvantages the workers and that over time results in workers living worse lives, economically and socially and politically."
No, these are all still "free speech," paradigmatic examples, really. Convincing workers that both they and the owning class share in some universal right is the same as convincing them that they both share some bond called Patriotism. Personally, I think we need to stop concocting these procedural exceptions and recognize "Freedom of Speech" as just another mystification of capitalist domination.
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on? :)
Morality and immorality have no absolute standard. He who acts contrary to his conscience is immoral. He whose morality allows of acts that another's would proscribe nevertheless acts morally. The malaise that afflicts our societies is increasingly the inability to recognise acting contrary to conscience as constituting immorality for oneself and recognising that an act that disfavours another unfairly even has anything to do with morality.
In the matter of negotiation, things are not as clear cut as you suggest. The only negotiated consensus that is fair is one in which the benefits and disadvantages that are negotiated are based on full knowledge of what perfection is constituted by and are exclusive to the parties to the negotiation. Where that breaks down is where one or the other party is left in ignorance as to where perfection lies or where either or both of the parties negotiate on behalf of a party who is not a party to the negotiations. These two conditions are not met in a surprising number of cases, often in the most offhanded of ways, such as, "We know what the market rate is for this work, but WE can't pay that rate." Yet, they still want the work done.
See here my essays on the dangers of negotiation: https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/a-bird-in-the-hand-is-worth-two-on and https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/exploring-the-unknown-universe-of
lol what is this
Ho, ho, ho, it's the result of thinking about things. Put question marks on your questions in future: makes you look less self-satisfied.
You may laugh while patting yourself on the back but I still can’t discern what your point is. Do you disagree with something Hamilton said here? How so, and why? What exactly are you trying to say here that is relevant to the topic? Try being concise and direct instead of verbose and vague.
Whew! so it wasn't just me then!
LOL!